Have we fallen at all?

[Google Bot 3,329]

Relegation into League One was my lowest point, I thought the club was dead to be honest.   Financial holes to fill, Roeder had a squad of loanees and you just couldn't see any kind of plan or progression which is what really concerned me.    What McNally done the following season to put us back on track was just simply incredible, a real saviour for this club.

That's why I think this concept of whether we've fallen isn't just about league positions, it's much more about where you are as a club, the structure in place, and therefore what kind of future path lies ahead.  You know you've fallen when you can no longer see the path.

In regards to younger supporters.  It's so different for them.  My lad puts such huge emphasis on things like Fifa and how good the players likenesses are, for example.  So as we become less relevant in the football pyramid, it means less exposure, and less connection for them.

As much as there's a lot of acceptance and inclusion in younger generations, there's also a strong underlying current of elitism and the need for external validation also, and that only makes it tougher to deal with going from the bright lights of the prem league to the immediate shadows of the Championship.

[Newtopia 519]

18 hours ago, Besthorpe-48 said:

Couldn't find the post so started this thread.

The post said making the play offs was a sign of how far the club had fallen.

Being old I remember 1957 when city were 92nd in the football league.

So I have just analysed the finishing positions over the whole length of the 96 seasons since we joined the football league.

Answer average position is 36 th or 16th I the champs. No fall there.

In only 31 seasons out of 96 have we finished 26th or better.

Being generous I also calculated the 51 seasons since the first promotion to div 1 in 1972. Average position is that familiar one of 1st in the championship. Not much of a fall there.

Be interested in comments.

I am completely with you.  The issue about unhappy fans stems from their expectations.  Delia and Michael have generally out performed our statistic average for a sustained amount of time.  People naturally want more; but with a period of success we would probably also need to accept a period of regression.  In terms of having that massive high and qualifying for Europe (for example) it is probably outside of our financial capabilities, that is just an example of how far football finances have come.

[Fen Canary 870]

16 hours ago, nutty nigel said:

So over the last 10 years our average position is roughly 24th

Over the last 20 years our average position is roughly 26th

Over the last 30 years our average position is roughly 27th

C'est la vie say the old folks...

So we’re getting better? That’ll do for me! 

[dylanisabaddog 5,006]

Any discussion on our place in football history shouldn't pass without mention of Ron Saunders. For those of you who are 63ish or younger his name won't mean much to you but perhaps someone could look at our average league positions before and after his time here. 

Before Saunders arrived our highest position had been halfway up Tier 2. For most of the preceding 65 years we had been a Tier 3 or 4 club. A reasonable comparison would be Swindon Town (ignoring a couple of years of brief success). 

It says everything about his time here that we now discuss whether or not we're a top tier club. Before his arrival we weren't and if it wasn't for him we could well be where Swindon are now. 

So @Besthorpe-48, could you give us a breakdown pre and post Saunders? If it's not too much trouble! 

There have quite rightly been discussions about a statue of Justin at Carrow Road but if I had to pick one person who should be commemorated it would be Saunders. 

If you try to think of managers who have completely changed the expectations of a club and its supporters you won't find many. The only ones that spring to mind are Bill Shankly and a couple down the road. 

Edited February 22 by dylanisabaddog

[Bigbrenn 61]

So as we become less relevant in the football pyramid, it means less exposure, and less connection for them.

This is one of our biggest challenges I would say. As the population of Norfolk grows and children have an interest in football, it is influenced by what they are fed by the media. As young children are asked 'what football kit do you want for Xmas?', how many parents can resist buying Liverpool or Arsenal kits rather than little ol Norwich related merchandise? You see Premier league shirts everywhere. 

Edited February 22 by Bigbrenn

[king canary 7,679]

1 hour ago, Bigbrenn said:

So as we become less relevant in the football pyramid, it means less exposure, and less connection for them.

This is one of our biggest challenges I would say. As the population of Norfolk grows and children have an interest in football, it is influenced by what they are fed by the media. As young children are asked 'what football kit do you want for Xmas?', how many parents can resist buying Liverpool or Arsenal kits rather than little ol Norwich related merchandise? You see Premier league shirts everywhere. 

Not just Premier League- kids are often wearing Barca, Madrid, PSG, Bayern etc etc. PSG are opening a superstore in London. I even saw a kid in the kit of Ronaldo's Saudi Arabian team recently. 

The way young people consume football is changing and it is concerning for anyone outside of the big clubs.

[BigFish 1,988]

21 hours ago, king canary said:

I think this is a really interesting point.

It is easy for someone in their 60's to sit back and say 'it's all cyclical, I remember when we were awful in 1968 but brilliant in 1988' but to expect a 26 year old to consider that in their thinking isn't going to happen. I don't think it is entitled to base it on your own experience.

This is probably the focus of a really interesting research project - if anyone could be bothered. Easy to come up with subjective opinions base on hearsay, as we all do but what is the makeup by age of our fanbase, those who go to home games and those who go away? Also how does that impact their expectations?

The Sky money and EPL have made the game unrecognizable at the elite level, and I suspect this change hasn't slowed. The big question is probably not what has happened, but what will and will we like it.

[Jim Smith 2,339]

The issue for me is not so much that we’ve fallen, but more that we have not taken the opportunities that have been created to truly transform the future of the club and that our efforts at prem level have been so poor. I just think that ownership constraints/desire not to let go have ultimately hamstrung us at key moments and now we risk regressing to the mean whereas we had a genuine opportunity to change our future.

Wolves, Brighton, Brentford, West Ham, Palace (to a degree), Leicester, Fulham and a few others have made more of similar opportunities and the fact is that those clubs will never go back to what may have been their “historical” average level barring serious mismanagement. Luton may well do the same to a lesser degree. We, on the other hand, haven’t even managed to expand the ground to build up/increase our match going fanbase. If we’d had a decent crack at the top level and had rebuilt the City Stand it would be different, but all we really have to show for it is a training ground that is a bit better than the average in the champ. 
 

I do agree there is a generational element to expectations. I started going to games in the mid 80s. The first 8/9 years of my regular attendance were arguably our most successful ever. I went to Carrow Road expecting us to win most games and I probably still do. That said, I then sat through some utter filth in the years that followed that and in ma y ways did not find that experience as frustrating as some of the recent passed up opportunities. I can handle us being cr*p, it’s when we have good players but waste them that I find most frustrating. 

Edited February 22 by Jim Smith

[Scrivvy 20]

3 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Any discussion on our place in football history shouldn't pass without mention of Ron Saunders. For those of you who are 63ish or younger his name won't mean much to you but perhaps someone could look at our average league positions before and after his time here. 

Before Saunders arrived our highest position had been halfway up Tier 2. For most of the preceding 65 years we had been a Tier 3 or 4 club. A reasonable comparison would be Swindon Town (ignoring a couple of years of brief success). 

It says everything about his time here that we now discuss whether or not we're a top tier club. Before his arrival we weren't and if it wasn't for him we could well be where Swindon are now. 

So @Besthorpe-48, could you give us a breakdown pre and post Saunders? If it's not too much trouble! 

There have quite rightly been discussions about a statue of Justin at Carrow Road but if I had to pick one person who should be commemorated it would be Saunders. 

If you try to think of managers who have completely changed the expectations of a club and its supporters you won't find many. The only ones that spring to mind are Bill Shankly and a couple down the road. 

I'm a little bit younger than your 63'ish, but I remember Ron Saunders well. 

An incredible manager.
I doubt he was that easy to get on with, but he got more from that group of players than probably anyone else could have done.
As you said, from 1972 onwards expectations changed and even when we did go down in 1974 and 1981, came straight back again.

The other manager that springs to mind about changing a club's expectations is Brian Clough - both at Derby and Forest.
Both were pretty much going nowhere and had never been big hitters in the English game, but he turned them both into First Division champions.

[king canary 7,679]

43 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This is probably the focus of a really interesting research project - if anyone could be bothered. Easy to come up with subjective opinions base on hearsay, as we all do but what is the makeup by age of our fanbase, those who go to home games and those who go away? Also how does that impact their expectations?

The Sky money and EPL have made the game unrecognizable at the elite level, and I suspect this change hasn't slowed. The big question is probably not what has happened, but what will and will we like it.

It stands to reason our fanbase would be a bit older as I think Norfolk has an older average age than the general population- EDP reported last year that North Norfolk has the oldest average age in the country and it is only getting older. 

There have been some interesting pieces written on this over the last few years- Miguel Delaney did a series in the Independent about the future of football that contained some concerning lines about demographics and the fact the clubs at the very top are dragging more and more young fans towards those sorts of clubs. So our fanbase getting older isn't just an us issue.

[BigFish 1,988]

22 hours ago, shefcanary said:

This is an intersting thread from my perspective, because I think people can only really argue this looking forward, not back.

But no-one can argue with your view from the perspective of a 50+ something. I have discussed on here before however (you can argue they are entitled but) a lot of our 20 something fans will only look back to the period from 2010 onwards. Your argument then starts to fail with them. 

I'm not saying you are wrong, just that now there is a large part of our supporter base who have a very different perspective.

My current view is that you are better to focus on ground capacity as a more fitting barometer for sense checking and looking forward. Carrow Road's current capacity would actually mirror your own view based on past performance, currently 29th in England (which given we currently sit 28th may mean we are overperforming, just). (Source: List of English football stadiums by capacity - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

My contention for many years is that to truly compete at the top we have to be more ambitious in terms of the stadium. Plenty of people on here have disagreed with me before and probably still will, but my hope is that Attanasio will back capital investment to improve our chances. Currently Southampton at 32,505 hold the valuable 17th place in this ranking, I would still argue we could regularly fill a ground with a 35,000 capacity in the EPL, which would take us to around 14th. 

It's one theory, but I also agree Sunderland, Middlesbrough, Wednesday, Derby, Cardiff, Southampton, Coventry and Leicester currently would disprove it as none of them are in the EPL but all are in the top 20! 

Another way would be by ranking your owner's wealth, but until Attanasio takes full control and in lieu of the EFL approval of his owner/ directorship, with Smith & Jones wealth currently Norwich would barely hold on to a place in League 2! It would take Attanasio to gain full control, plus providing access via his business partner and the other 17% shareholders in Norfolk Ltd to put us in the EPL!!

So that's 3 ways you can argue we haven't really fallen, and one way from the youngsters to argue we have.

All grist to the mill.

These days it is a question of brand value. As such stadium size matters less than where it is, what facilities it has and what history it has. This translates to how much revenue it generates, or could generate, which is dependent on how wealthy the fan base is. And that is without the much derided "plastics", the brand recognition nationally and now globally - all of which in a virtual/TV driven market provide value. With this ironically Delia is probably worth more than MA. Players also have brand value as well as transfer value. Put that all together and you have some sort of ranking.

It is worth noting that rather than the position in this ranking the important thing is the gradient of differentials e.g. the big clubs are pulling away, growing faster than the smaller ones.

[shefcanary 2,465]

1 minute ago, king canary said:

It stands to reason our fanbase would be a bit older as I think Norfolk has an older average age than the general population- EDP reported last year that North Norfolk has the oldest average age in the country and it is only getting older. 

There have been some interesting pieces written on this over the last few years- Miguel Delaney did a series in the Independent about the future of football that contained some concerning lines about demographics and the fact the clubs at the very top are dragging more and more young fans towards those sorts of clubs. So our fanbase getting older isn't just an us issue.

There is also a big opportunity though, especially along the A11 corridor and in Norwich itself, with people relocating from London and the south east. The club has to "mine / harvest" both the parents but more importantly their offspring for the long term good of the club. It might not go down well with the older set, but to do this there is a bit of work to do on the future intentions of the club. 

Thankfully the queues at the recent van Hooijdonk half term signing session implies they are doing well at getting to younger fans, securing their regular attendance at the ground is the next challenge.

[dylanisabaddog 5,006]

58 minutes ago, BigFish said:

This is probably the focus of a really interesting research project - if anyone could be bothered. Easy to come up with subjective opinions base on hearsay, as we all do but what is the makeup by age of our fanbase, those who go to home games and those who go away? Also how does that impact their expectations?

The Sky money and EPL have made the game unrecognizable at the elite level, and I suspect this change hasn't slowed. The big question is probably not what has happened, but what will and will we like it.

I quite agree. 

My opinion of our fan base is based purely on what I see on tv crowd pictures. Our fans always seem older but it always feels to me that we attract more women to games. But as you say, that's as far as you can get from a fact based opinion. 

As for TV money, the changes it's brought won't be reversed. The only thing that will change our domestic game is a European Super League. That may take things back to 1990 but I would like that. I suspect I'm in the minority 

[shefcanary 2,465]

1 minute ago, BigFish said:

These days it is a question of brand value. As such stadium size matters less than where it is, what facilities it has and what history it has. This translates to how much revenue it generates, or could generate, which is dependent on how wealthy the fan base is. And that is without the much derided "plastics", the brand recognition nationally and now globally - all of which in a virtual/TV driven market provide value. With this ironically Delia is probably worth more than MA. Players also have brand value as well as transfer value. Put that all together and you have some sort of ranking.

It is worth noting that rather than the position in this ranking the important thing is the gradient of differentials e.g. the big clubs are pulling away, growing faster than the smaller ones.

I totally agree, it is all about where the club wants to be in the future - a degree of ambition certainly helps in building the brand. See my comment on the Man Utd stadium thread about Attanasio seizing a similar political imitative with a "national" stadium for the East at Carrow Road, but also developing the rest of the site potentially with an indoor arena for the East as well. And my comment above about mining / harvesting the offspring of recent and future settlers / evacuees from London and the SE.

[BigFish 1,988]

2 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I quite agree. 

My opinion of our fan base is based purely on what I see on tv crowd pictures. Our fans always seem older but it always feels to me that we attract more women to games. But as you say, that's as far as you can get from a fact based opinion. 

As for TV money, the changes it's brought won't be reversed. The only thing that will change our domestic game is a European Super League. That may take things back to 1990 but I would like that. I suspect I'm in the minority 

Thanks @dylanisabaddog, I forgot gender - probably another important factor when considering the expectations of the fans.

[dylanisabaddog 5,006]

3 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

There is also a big opportunity though, especially along the A11 corridor and in Norwich itself, with people relocating from London and the south east. The club has to "mine / harvest" both the parents but more importantly their offspring for the long term good of the club. It might not go down well with the older set, but to do this there is a bit of work to do on the future intentions of the club. 

Thankfully the queues at the recent van Hooijdonk half term signing session implies they are doing well at getting to younger fans, securing their regular attendance at the ground is the next challenge.

I stood in crowds of 37,000 in the early to mid 70's and I suspect that the population of Norfolk has doubled since then. The problem is that in those days the cost of attending was way less than it is now. Virtually everyone could afford it but sadly that's not the case now. 

I'm glad I'm not the one who has to look in a crystal ball and decide what to do next but there is no doubt we will miss a generation if nothing is done. 

[shefcanary 2,465]

8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I stood in crowds of 37,000 in the early to mid 70's and I suspect that the population of Norfolk has doubled since then.

I did too, which is why I find it so frustrating that people think we haven't the demand there for a 35,000 capacity stadium. Pricing strategies could achieve that, as well as other initiatives the club are currently employing, if only in a half hearted manner. Build it, get the price right and the entertainment right, and they will come.

[dylanisabaddog 5,006]

3 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Thanks @dylanisabaddog, I forgot gender - probably another important factor when considering the expectations of the fans.

Is it just me though? Do we have more female supporters and if so is that in anyway connected to having a high profile female owner? I think so but that's just my opinion and I could easily be wrong. I think it makes Carrow Road a more pleasant environment but probably makes it quieter as well, as does our age profile.

@shefcanary@shefcanary@shefcanary@shefcanary makes an interesting point about London incomers. A new estate of 350 houses was finished in my village 5 years ago. The first 50 houses were all sold to people from outside Norfolk. It's on the edge of the village and is pretty much a community on its own. I regularly watch our successful village team but not one of the new people has come along.

Apologies for the formatting above. Every time I tried to cure the problem it got worse. Shef canary is now plural. Sorry! 

[shefcanary 2,465]

1 minute ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Shef canary is now plural. Sorry! 

I've always been a pluralist!

[dylanisabaddog 5,006]

15 minutes ago, shefcanary said:

I did too, which is why I find it so frustrating that people think we haven't the demand there for a 35,000 capacity stadium. Pricing strategies could achieve that, as well as other initiatives the club are currently employing, if only in a half hearted manner. Build it, get the price right and the entertainment right, and they will come.

In the Premier League we could fill a 45,000 capacity stadium 9 or 10 times. The problem is we don't usually need 27,000 in the Championship. All we need is a manager who can get us there and keep us there......  If you want to know what happens if we build it and end up in the Championship have a look down the road. The only reason they didn't go out of business is that they don't own their ground. 

Back in our League 1 season we could apparently have sold 60,000 tickets for the home game against Leeds. I'm sure that was due to interest from Leeds but it's a strong indicator. If we do extend the City Stand I would be in favour of moving visitors to the River End. Cancel all season tickets in that end and split it in half when the visiting team don't want it all. 

Edited February 22 by dylanisabaddog

[ricardo 7,402]

5 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

In the Premier League we could fill a 45,000 capacity stadium 9 or 10 times. 

Based on what evidence?

 

[ricardo 7,402]

11 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

. If we do extend the City Stand I would be in favour of moving visitors to the River End. Cancel all season tickets in that end and split it in half when the visiting team don't want it all. 

This will never happen because the logistics of clearing the crowd towards the railway station determine otherwise. That is why away supporters have always been allocated part of the Barclay or South Stand corner.

[Google Bot 3,329]

50 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

I stood in crowds of 37,000 in the early to mid 70's and I suspect that the population of Norfolk has doubled since then. The problem is that in those days the cost of attending was way less than it is now. Virtually everyone could afford it but sadly that's not the case now. 

It's availability too, I speak to friends who used to go when we were younger why they don't take their kids to the odd match, and it's because, unlike our parents, you can't find yourself available for the afternoon and just nip to the footy, it kills a lot of casual fans.

The club should offer/promote cut price 'last minute' tickets to fill vacant seats and spread it across social media, or the club app as send notifications a few hours before kickoff.  As that's how you bring these people in.

Otherwise the parents are sat at home either watching a stream or listening to Radio Norfolk, and the kids are otherwise engaged on their phones/tablets, so many never even get a taste of it.  Or if they do, it's a sleepy cup tie or something.

I don't know how viable it all is though. 

Edited February 22 by Google Bot

[essex canary 506]

48 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

Is it just me though? Do we have more female supporters and if so is that in anyway connected to having a high profile female owner? I think so but that's just my opinion and I could easily be wrong. I think it makes Carrow Road a more pleasant environment but probably makes it quieter as well, as does our age profile.

@shefcanary@shefcanary@shefcanary@shefcanary 

There don't seem to be too many females amongst our 6,860 shareholders but that is possibly because there has been no serious refreshing exercise in the past 20 years. It doesn't fairly reflect the age demographic either. How about a pricing policy similar to Dereham Golf Club, concessions up to age 40 but not beyond?

[Robert N. LiM 4,507]

1 hour ago, dylanisabaddog said:

If you try to think of managers who have completely changed the expectations of a club and its supporters you won't find many. The only ones that spring to mind are Bill Shankly and a couple down the road. 

Your other thread makes me think of Busby and Ferguson, the only two Man Utd managers to have won the title since, iirc, 1913. The achievements of those two remarkable men, islands in a sea of mediocrity, have somehow persuaded United fans that they support a great club...

[Google Bot 3,329]

11 minutes ago, Robert N. LiM said:

Your other thread makes me think of Busby and Ferguson, the only two Man Utd managers to have won the title since, iirc, 1913. The achievements of those two remarkable men, islands in a sea of mediocrity, have somehow persuaded United fans that they support a great club...

It also makes you appreciate the importance of a good head coach/manager, too.  It's easy to dismiss Man City's achievements because of the money involved.  But the day that Pep leaves will be really interesting to see what happens, despite having all that wealth and investment in the past, it could easily become a poisoned chalice role for successors, as replacing Fergie has been.

Liverpool without Klopp will be interesting next season too.

[Robert N. LiM 4,507]

2 hours ago, Jim Smith said:

Wolves, Brighton, Brentford, West Ham, Palace (to a degree), Leicester, Fulham and a few others have made more of similar opportunities and the fact is that those clubs will never go back to what may have been their “historical” average level barring serious mismanagement.

West Ham (with their government funded stadium) sure, but the others? Their recent histories reveal just how short-lived their success currently is. Far too soon to say they'll never go back to their average level.

In the last ten years Wolves have had five years in the PL, four in the Championship and one in League One

Brighton have had six in the PL and four in the Championship

Fulham have had four in the PL and six in the Championship, yo-yoing most of the time Last season was the first since 2013 that they successfully stayed up.

Brentford are getting towards the end of their third season in the PL. Life post-Toney and post-Frank will be interesting for them.

Leicester are currently in the Championship. Not for long, sure.

Palace have done really well, but their fans are clearly not happy about their direction of travel. Hardly beyond the realms of possibility that they could be in for a few years in the Champs shortly.

 

There will always be clubs doing better than us, and always clubs doing worse.

That's not to say we haven't made mistakes, and I said earlier up this thread that the pace at we've declined over the last few years has been particularly frustrating, but even in the current iteration of the Premier League - more billionaire playthings than football clubs - nothing is permanent...

 

Edited February 22 by Robert N. LiM

[lake district canary 4,547]

12 hours ago, The Bunny said:

He was sacked because he managed 6 wins in 49 PL games over his Norwich City Managerial career. And at the point the decision was made, it was 5 in 48. Most managers would have been gone well before that point. 

Don't get me wrong, there were mitigating circumstances, lack of budget, selling our best player etc. But that's still a terrible record at the top level. 

My view is that it isn't terrible given the circumstances. It was a rough end to a PL season because of lockdown, then a superb season to get us back to the PL - and then another bum deal on circumstances.  Even if we had decent enough players and a settled team going into that second season, it would have been difficult enough, but we didn't, we didn't even have Nornann and Kabak to start with, after the covid truncated pre-season.

The bare "6 wins in 49" thing ignores so many things that make that stat almost meaningless. 

 

 

 

[Besthorpe-48 103]

Good to see this thread has generated what seems to me to be a really interesting discussion

So I have done a bit more analysis based on dividing our 96 seasons into 12 8s with the following and may be surprising results.

1921 to 1932 avg position 71st = 3rd in league 2 I modern parlance

1933 to 1950 51st 7th in league 1

1951 to 1962 53rd

1963 to 1974 28th 8th in champs = today

1975 to 1986 16th

1987 to 1998 21st

1999 to 2010 30th due to year in league 1

2011 to date 21st.

So the best period on that analysis was 1975 to 1986.

Interesting

Eventually I will work out the best decade especially if it keeps raining and the golf course is closed!

[The Bunny 314]

18 minutes ago, lake district canary said:

The bare "6 wins in 49" thing ignores so many things that make that stat almost meaningless. 

I beg to differ. I don't think you'll find a more indicative statistic of performance at the top level. 

Obviously, context matters too, but the stat is hardly meaningless.